Now is our chance to change the political field of battle; the recent revelations regarding the IRS's political targeting and the NSA's domestic spying have engendered a healthy distrust of the now feral Federal Government. - We have the opportunity not only to stop this thing dead in its tracks, but make support for it legally actionable at the federal and State level.

Here's how: The governors of the Several States have a lot of unused power, commonly set forth in their respective state's constitution is the power to declare a state of invasion. If two or more States were to declare such a state (with illegal immigrants being the invading force) then support for an amnesty (or even relaxed/unenforced immigration) is giving legal aid and comfort to the enemies of the Several States.

This is important because the Constitution clearly defines Treason as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort — and Treason is one of the things that the privilege from arrest given congressmen in Art I, Sec 6 does not cover.

Indeed, after declaring such a state of invasion the Constitution requires the federal government to provide help to the states in Art 4, Sec 4, and to withhold help would be treason. Furthermore, a Supreme Court ruling stating the actions of the Governors actions as legitimate would be, again, treason.

Now is the time to make the Federal Government choke on its own actions. Let us force them into a political no-win scenario while they think they have us between a wall and a sword.

If anyone at FR knows Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott, I’d love for them to see what he thinks of the idea.

I feel like we are at the point of 410AD in Rome....I don’t think people realize we are not just talking about an invasion of Mexicans, this is the opening of floodgates to all of central and South America and pretty much any other country that wants in, bringing their attitudes and worldviews, for good or ill, with them. (Venezuela, etc.)

Not quite, SB 1070 was about enforcing immigration, to counter this the court would have to declare that governors have no right to (a) declare invasion, (b) demand the Federal Government abide by Art 4, Sec 4 of the US Constitution, or (c) defend their states w/ the [State's] militia.

Also, Scalia wrote a good dissent, here, which I remember him mentioning something like the only sovereignty left after this decision was that of military/militia usage. [Sorry, I couldn't find the exact quote.]

15
posted on 06/13/2013 2:16:44 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

I think you’re being too technical in your reading of the treason clause. When the Constitution refers to the “United States” and “their enemies,” that does not mean that two states agreeing that a group of people are invaders means that those people are “their enemies,” and that any support for those people is treason. The “United States” does not mean two or more states that disagree, it means the Union.

Think about the logical extension of your argument. Your argument essentially gives two people (the governors of two states) the power to declare war. That is contrary to Article I’s provision granting Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, repel invasions, etc.

Think about the logical extension of your argument. Your argument essentially gives two people (the governors of two states) the power to declare war. That is contrary to Article Is provision granting Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, repel invasions, etc.

No, the power to declare War is reserved to the Congress; however, when States are being invade a state of war already exists (invasion being an act of war, obviously). Just because Congress refuses to declare war does not mean that the country cannot be in a state of war... to assert that would be to assert that other countries cannot declare war on the US.

The power to repel invasions is not exclusive to the Congress. That is, it is absurd to insist that the States cannot defend themselves.

20
posted on 06/13/2013 2:27:14 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

I’m not suggesting that the States cannot defend themselves. I’m suggesting that the mere act of two governors declaring a certain group of people to be “Invaders” does not have the Constitutional effect of rendering those people “enemies” such that any action taken by anyone (including the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the governors of any of the other 48 states) to be treason. Your logic essentially gives unchecked power (since, by your logic, even a Supreme Court ruling against the governors’ action would be treason) to any two+ governors who declare something to be an invasion. That’s absurd.

Technically nullification works just as well. Failure of the Federal government to enforce federal laws surrounding immigration would be grounds for a state, any state, to invoke nullification.

However, in this example, it would only provide the means for the state to remove foreign nationals found to be there illegally to another state in the union.

It wouldn’t provide the means of deportation unless coupled with outright secession.

I believe that would be a more profitable tack. Let the federal government attempt to pass amnesty, but have the state enforce the laws within their own territory and remove those foriegn nationals found illegally to the rest of the united states. Escorted + bus ticket out would probably be sufficient.

The US continues inflating away our debt, someday the Chinese decided to invade California to regain some of their loss, but rather than declare a war, Congress decided to look the other way,( call it by another name, call it “liberating California” or something). Say the citizens of California wanted to fight back, what would be their recourse? They ARE in a way, it’s just that Congress is totally failing in its duty to recognize it.

I think this is the same situation. At that point one of the main reasons for the existence of the federal government is pretty much gone. There really are just a few constitutional reasons for the government at the federal level. If they have shredded the constitution up and refuse to abide by it, they have BROKEN THEIR CONTRACT with “We, the PEOPLE”, and at that point the states must kick in to protect their citizens.

I believe that would be a more profitable tack. Let the federal government attempt to pass amnesty, but have the state enforce the laws within their own territory and remove those foriegn nationals found illegally to the rest of the united states. Escorted + bus ticket out would probably be sufficient.

You missed the USSC ruling on SB 1070, didn't you? They declared that the States cannot enforce Federal immigration law, nor can they mirror it in State Law.

25
posted on 06/13/2013 2:51:29 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

My question is this - in your hypothetical, how could the two state governors be held accountable for their actions? Your logic seems to dictate that as soon as the governors declared an invasion, it would become treason to take any action against their declaration.

Pointless for me. I have Jan Brewer, and she's not taking conservative phone calls now that she's been reelected. She's busy pushing a huge Medicaid expansion through a Special Session while threatening the Republicans in the state House with wholesale vetoes.

27
posted on 06/13/2013 3:04:29 PM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

My question is this - in your hypothetical, how could the two state governors be held accountable for their actions? Your logic seems to dictate that as soon as the governors declared an invasion, it would become treason to take any action against their declaration.

And? Are not things in law substantiated on two [or more] witnesses? I worry far less about abuse by governors [ATM] than I do about the feral FedGov; the way to beat governors is to act like, and demand that, the State's Constitution means what it says.

I've looked at all the States's Constitutions where I would be living, only this one have I given less than a good read-through... I only skimmed it. (Though that reminds me that I should give it a better read.)

28
posted on 06/13/2013 3:12:18 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Pointless for me. I have Jan Brewer, and she's not taking conservative phone calls now that she's been reelected. She's busy pushing a huge Medicaid expansion through a Special Session while threatening the Republicans in the state House with wholesale vetoes.

Disappointing. I remember just a few years ago when she seemed worth having some enthusiasm about.

Is it really pointless? If we don't alert the govs they'll never know.

29
posted on 06/13/2013 3:14:13 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

I can't think of anything in law that is substantiated on two [or more] witnesses with no possibility for any further review.

Here's a hypothetical on top of your hypothetical - suppose that two governors declare it as an invasion, but then two other governors explicitly declare it NOT to be an invasion? Hell, suppose the other 48 governors all declared that it is NOT an invasion. Would the other 48 governors thus be traitors, simply because they disagreed with the two who declared an invasion?

Here's another question - suppose, after the two governors declare an invasion, that a majority of citizens in each of the states disagree and seek to recall the governors. If these citizens mentioned the invasion issue in their recall campaign ("Vote to Recall Governor X because he incorrectly declared an invasion"), would that be Treason?

My point is that your suggestion would give unchecked power to a very, very small number of people (potentially two). That is not what the Founders envisioned or intended the Constitution to allow.

Actually, Article Four, Section 4 grants this power to the LEGISLATURES of the several States. Unless the Legislature CANNOT convene. Which in this day and age is almost never the case.

The framers only left it to the Governor's in extremis, because in the case of invasion there may not be time or opportunity to convene the Legislature.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL protect each of them against Invasion; and on APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Frankly, I think the chances of a Legislature doing this are higher than getting a Governor to stick his neck out so far.

Here's a hypothetical on top of your hypothetical - suppose that two governors declare it as an invasion, but then two other governors explicitly declare it NOT to be an invasion? Hell, suppose the other 48 governors all declared that it is NOT an invasion. Would the other 48 governors thus be traitors, simply because they disagreed with the two who declared an invasion?

That's not too hard to imagine/explain as reality: lay out a map of the US at your next picnic and smear honey on TX and NM — letting all the ants represent illegal aliens, tell me which states are invaded? (That is, the lack of invasion on other states does not invalidate the state of invasion on those other states.)

Here's another question - suppose, after the two governors declare an invasion, that a majority of citizens in each of the states disagree and seek to recall the governors. If these citizens mentioned the invasion issue in their recall campaign ("Vote to Recall Governor X because he incorrectly declared an invasion"), would that be Treason?

IMO that would depend on if the State's Constitution either (a) explicitly gave the Governor that authority, or (b) explicitly gave the Citizens the right to recall him. — I'm assuming, also, that they'd also have availed themselves of any possibility of demanding redress.

My point is that your suggestion would give unchecked power to a very, very small number of people (potentially two). That is not what the Founders envisioned or intended the Constitution to allow.

It's not unchecked power, obviously. (It is rightly subject to the State's own Constitution; that is what the 9th and 10th Amendment are about.) Do you think this feral/federal government is!?

32
posted on 06/13/2013 3:31:27 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

The framers only left it to the Governor's in extremis, because in the case of invasion there may not be time or opportunity to convene the Legislature.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL protect each of them against Invasion; and on APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The 'and' indicates that such is another element of a list; therefore the guarantee of protection [in case of invasion] is separate from that of the "application of the legislature*".

Or would you say that this would prevent Amendments 9 & 10 from allowing, say, New Mexico's constitution to say the following?

Art V, Sec. 4. [Governors executive power; commander of militia.] The supreme executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor, who shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall be commander in chief of the military forces of the state, except when they are called into the service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to preserve the public peace, execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.

* or executive [when...]

33
posted on 06/13/2013 3:37:33 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

I find it astonishing Governors could serve without knowing their enumerated powers, but what do I know? A bunch of them are Democrats and inherently stupid. Letting them know *we know* would not be pointless in many cases, just mine.

As for Brewer, I never trusted her since before she ran for Secretary of State in AZ, when I met her and her smarmy husband. I was pleased she signed a couple of pro-gun bills, but I knew she was pandering for votes and it wouldn’t last five minutes past her Primary for reelection as Governor...I was correct about the timing.

35
posted on 06/13/2013 3:48:49 PM PDT
by Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)

Let’s say you’re right, and the “and” separates rather than joins the two clauses.

1) The language still requires the United States to protect the States from invasion. Period. No request from the individual State is required for the general government to do so. They simply must.

2) The language still does not preclude the Legislatures from making the request for protection, with or without the Governor. If the first clause stands alone, it doesn’t then specify who makes the request on behalf of the individual State.

3) This invasion has led to a high degree of domestic violence. Our prisons and streets are full of illegals who have harmed Americans. By the way, if what illegals are doing in this regard is not regarded as “domestic violence,” that only leaves one other option: it is the hostile act of a foreign nation, and we should by all rights recognize that a state of war exists, and reply with our own Declaration of War, and then commence hostilities.

The reason I think it is more likely that a Legislature would make the application is because the Governors are a bunch of moral cowards. Sticking their necks out on the behalf of the people and the Constitution just isn’t their style. The Legislatures have lots of those sorts as well, but the responsibility would be spread out, and therefore more likely to be undertaken.

We’re dealing with a matter that is fundamental and indispensible. When the oath is sworn, as Article Six requires of all officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, the core of that oath involves the securing of the lives, the liberty, the property of every individual, and the sovereignty, security, borders, and independence of the whole people. It’s a shared duty. It’s why we have a Union, and why we have a Constitution. It is the raison d’etre of this free republic, and the reason for the existence of each and every office within it.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”

— The Declaration of Independence

The Constitution gives special duties in this regard to the President of the United States, and as you rightfully pointed out, the state constitutions give special responsibilities to the Governors.

But, fundamentally, the right and duty of self-protection and self-preservation is, as Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence pointed out, the first law of nature.

Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers... [Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform]

...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance]

One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

45
posted on 06/13/2013 6:55:04 PM PDT
by SunkenCiv
(McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)

What is the individual citizen's relationship with our government? Are the statements in the Constitution similar to a binding contract or covenant with duties and responsibilities that must be fulfilled? What are the consequences if they are not? In other words, when is the contract or a section of the contract rendered void? (I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert by any means, I'm just trying to learn.)

And I'm not looking for the pat “Tree of liberty...”quotes. Just wondering when it is that part of a contract has been breached, then is the offended party free to go on and fulfill that requirement in some other way? Even if the Supreme court says, no, you can't do that... when can the state legislatures/governor just ignore and task the State militias to begin securing the border because the Federal government has broken their side of the contract?

Were dealing with a matter that is fundamental and indispensible. When the oath is sworn, as Article Six requires of all officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, the core of that oath involves the securing of the lives, the liberty, the property of every individual, and the sovereignty, security, borders, and independence of the whole people. Its a shared duty. Its why we have a Union, and why we have a Constitution. It is the raison detre of this free republic, and the reason for the existence of each and every office within it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

 The Declaration of Independence

The Constitution gives special duties in this regard to the President of the United States, and as you rightfully pointed out, the state constitutions give special responsibilities to the Governors.

But, fundamentally, the right and duty of self-protection and self-preservation is, as Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence pointed out, the first law of nature.

“The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitution of government. But the Constitution which at any times exists, til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

— George Washington

That’s not pat, by the way. It seems to go straight to the heart of your question.

Or at least part of it.

But, when we’re talking about self-preservation, you can’t wait around forever for others to do their duty. At some point, if you do not act on your own behalf, you are dead.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Or, as a picture paints a thousand words, this:

48
posted on 06/13/2013 8:43:18 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Historically the only thing that gets the undivided attention of FedGov is shelling one of their forts and for the states to start forming their own infantry regiments.

I want the infantry regiments formed up beforehand... and the shelling should be something a little more... purge-worthy. Like, say, the IRS or NSA headquarters. (The latter really did an act of war against the Citizens of the Several States, the former merely violated all public trust.)

50
posted on 06/13/2013 9:05:40 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.